In 1970s, there was "global cooling" consensus among scientists that triggered governments to do something about it or we'll live in the new ice age. One of those alarmist predicted that 1 billion people will die in a coming new ice age by 2020. Today, there is consensus among scientists about "global warming", and the same guy who predicted "then global cooling", urges immediate passage of the Obama administration's proposed cap-and-trade legislation to control carbon emissions before it is too late to save the planet from "global warming".

Today, that guy, John Holdren, is working in the White House as Obama's science czar.

Well, OK... 40 years ago was global cooling, then 10 years ago it changed to global warming. But, its getting bit confusing, since all those "global warming" screamers, are really looking very stupid these days.

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.

Obama's science czar suggested compulsory abortion, sterilization
By: David Freddoso
Commentary Staff Writer
07/14/09 4:55 PM EDT
Internet reports are now circulating that Obama's Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, John Holdren, penned a 1977 book that approved of and recommended compulsory sterilization and even abortion in some cases, as part of a government population control regime.

Given the general unreliability of Internet quotations, I wanted to go straight to this now-rare text and make sure the reports were both accurate and kept Holdren's writings in context. Generally speaking, they are, and they do.

The Holdren book, titled Ecoscience and co-authored with Malthus enthusiasts Paul and Anne Ehrlich, weighs in at more than 1,000 pages. Of greatest importance to its discussion of how to limit the human population is its disregard for any ethical considerations.

Holdren (with the Ehrlichs) notes the existence of &#8220;moral objections to some proposals...especially to any kind of compulsion.&#8221; But his approach is completely amoral. He implies that compulsory population control is less preferable, because of some people's objections, but he argues repeatedly that it is sometimes necessary, and necessity trumps all ethical objections.

He writes:

Several coercive proposals deserve discussion, mainly because some countries may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birth rates are rapidly reversed by other means. Some involuntary measures could be less repressive or discriminatory, in fact, than some of the socioeconomic measures suggested.

ABSTRACT
Climate science as we know it today did
not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated
enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prize winning
work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change existed then as separate threads of
research pursued by independent groups of
scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers
grappled with the measurement and
understanding of carbon dioxide and other
atmospheric gases while geologists and
paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when
Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why.
An enduring popular myth suggests that in the
1970s the climate science community was
predicting &#8220;global cooling&#8221; and an &#8220;imminent&#8221; ice
age, an observation frequently used by those who
would undermine what climate scientists say today
about the prospect of global warming.
A review of the literature suggests that, to the
contrary, greenhouse warming even then
dominated scientists&#8217; thinking about the most
important forces shaping Earth&#8217;s climate on
human time scales. More importantly than
showing the falsehood of the myth, this review
shows the important way scientists of the time built
the foundation on which the cohesiv

Since none of scientist's prediction couldn't hold a water, they came up with the term "climate change" so they can basically make headlines playing both sides of the debate. If it warms is our fault, if it cools it's our fault. The only "fast" they stick with is that either cooling or warming is caused by CO2.

Even that carbonate balloon is slowly deflating, government is not giving up, they keep telling us that there is no tomorrow. You had to know they didn't even believe their own line of CO2 bull, otherwise we would have the "scientists" giving us a more definitive answer than "very likely" after decades of research. No one that I know of was willing to attach their reputation to a "definitely".

In both cases, government is stepping in with intention to save us, and we know as well as they know, that only way they can save us from ourselves is to take money from us. This scheme is nothing more than another money grab by the UN and the greenies by painting the earth as a victim and man as the villain.

The 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report
UNDERSTANDING CLIMATE CHANGE: A program for action
Review by W M Connolley
This little-read report appears to serve as a useful summary of the state of opinion at the time (aside: I was prompted to read this by someone who thought the report supported the ice-age-was-predicted threoy [1]: as all too often happens, the report when actually read does no such thing...), which opinion was (my summary) "we can't predict climate yet, we need more research".
I know of only two places where this report is referred to in "current" debate (you know others? good: mail me: wmconnolley@gmail.com): the page from the Cato Institute (discussed on the main page, the main quote from which is "There was even a report by the National Research Council of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences reaching its usual ambiguous conclusions"), and in a page from sepp [remember, children, a link from this page does not imply endorsement of the contents...], an excerpt from which is below:

The 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report
UNDERSTANDING CLIMATE CHANGE: A program for action
Review by W M Connolley
This little-read report appears to serve as a useful summary of the state of opinion at the time (aside: I was prompted to read this by someone who thought the report supported the ice-age-was-predicted threoy [1]: as all too often happens, the report when actually read does no such thing...), which opinion was (my summary) "we can't predict climate yet, we need more research".
I know of only two places where this report is referred to in "current" debate (you know others? good: mail me: wmconnolley@gmail.com): the page from the Cato Institute (discussed on the main page, the main quote from which is "There was even a report by the National Research Council of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences reaching its usual ambiguous conclusions"), and in a page from sepp [remember, children, a link from this page does not imply endorsement of the contents...], an excerpt from which is below:

Obama's science czar suggested compulsory abortion, sterilization
By: David Freddoso
Commentary Staff Writer
07/14/09 4:55 PM EDT
Internet reports are now circulating that Obama's Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, John Holdren, penned a 1977 book that approved of and recommended compulsory sterilization and even abortion in some cases, as part of a government population control regime.

Given the general unreliability of Internet quotations, I wanted to go straight to this now-rare text and make sure the reports were both accurate and kept Holdren's writings in context. Generally speaking, they are, and they do.

The Holdren book, titled Ecoscience and co-authored with Malthus enthusiasts Paul and Anne Ehrlich, weighs in at more than 1,000 pages. Of greatest importance to its discussion of how to limit the human population is its disregard for any ethical considerations.

Holdren (with the Ehrlichs) notes the existence of moral objections to some proposals...especially to any kind of compulsion. But his approach is completely amoral. He implies that compulsory population control is less preferable, because of some people's objections, but he argues repeatedly that it is sometimes necessary, and necessity trumps all ethical objections.

He writes:

Several coercive proposals deserve discussion, mainly because some countries may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birth rates are rapidly reversed by other means. Some involuntary measures could be less repressive or discriminatory, in fact, than some of the socioeconomic measures suggested.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

yes, how does he know so many nuts, and better yet why does he like them so much?

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!